Editorial: Hobby Lobby case pits responsibility against rights

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied a Hobby Lobby request to block part of the federal health care law.

AGN Editorial

Talk about a fiscal cliff. Hobby Lobby, with a location in Amarillo on 3318 Bell St., faces a whopping $1.3 million fine — per day — starting Jan. 1 if the company does not bow to the mandates of the Obama administration and provide health insurance coverage for the so-called “morning-after pill,” among other birth control initiatives ramrodded by the Democrats.

American taxpayers are sweating a 2 percent increase in Social Security taxes coming Jan. 1 — part of Uncle Sam’s fiscal cliff — but that pales in comparison to what Hobby Lobby faces.

On Dec. 21, Hobby Lobby took its case to the highest court in the land, filing an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court for some kind of legal relief.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the request Friday. She said the stores fail to satisfy the legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. The companies can continue their challenge in lower courts.

While this legal battle has been described as an argument over religious rights vs. individual rights — and that is accurate — it also pits individual responsibility against individual rights.

Hobby Lobby ownership objects to being forced to provide health insurance coverage for a procedure that violates its religious views.

What isn’t being discussed to the same degree is whether a “morning-after pill” is a matter of personal health for which employers should be required to provide insurance coverage or if this procedure is related to personal choice, and therefore the responsibility of individual employees.

Only in rare — and horrible — circumstances would the use of a “morning-after pill” not be the result of a willful act that cannot be compared to illness/disease/injury or even preventive health care measures.

While the Supreme Court has weighed the legitimacy of this Obamacare mandate against business owners’ religious rights, how about also considering if a “morning-after pill” is really an issue of personal health?

Court petition

A portion of Hobby Lobby’s emergency application submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reads, “a regulatory mandate (the “HHS mandate”) promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will expose petitioners to draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions and provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Affordable Care Act was not "mandated" by the Obama administration or "ramrodded" by the Democrats. It was enacted through the same mechanism as all other legislation, and its key provisions have already been verified as constitutional by the Supreme Court. Whether you like or dislike the law, it is the law, and it must be obeyed or the included penalties should be incurred.

The freedoms delineated in the First Amendment and regarding which the Congress shall make no law are the freedoms of people who are American citizens; the First words of the Constitution are "We the People of the United States." A for-profit corporation is not a person and it is not a citizen; its owners and their beliefs are irrelevant. A corporation does not have a religion, nor does it have beliefs based on that religion. The owners of Hobby Lobby and Mardel will have only four choices: pay the fine, sell the business, close the business or comply with the law.

Or, Hobby Lobby could easily put its all of employees part-time. Problem solved.

As for corporations not being a person, SCOTUS recently afforded corporations the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution to individuals. What gives, bully says corporations are not individuals and cannot be afforded the freedoms of such and SCOTUS rules they are. I will defer with SCOTUS on this one.

To try to use a religion, to duck the law is lame. When hobby lobby goes part-time, you will get the service you pay for. You have to be real polite to get service, and you show your right wing attitude.
Folks a lot of you are going to get you comeuppance, when you go to a minimum wage rest home. Those poor folks are waiting for you.

Jehovahs witnesses are against violence and war. Should they be exempt from taxes that pay for our wars or military? If a Jehovah's witness runs a business and provides health care, can they force their employees healthcare to refuse blood transfusions?

If we allow any corporation to overrule the government due to the owners personal religious beliefs than that leaves them pretty open to do just about anything. I think we should be arguing why our health system is setup by corporations. Why people can't get affordable healthcare unless they go thru their employers choice. Especially when the employer owns or maintains the insurance and wants to decide how their employees use it.

dml is wrong and I'm willing to bet on it. If Hobby Lobby wins when its case gets to the Supreme Court, I will donate $10 to the Republican National Committee. If it loses, dml must donate $10 to the Republican National Committee. Is it a bet?

“Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really." ~Agnes Sligh Turnbull “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” -Margaret Thatcher

Your logic is lacking. First of all if someone doesn't like the benefits an employer provides they are free to look elsewhere. Second, an employer choosing what coverage to provide is not the same thing as telling employees how to use that coverage. It's really not that complicated.

yes free to look elsewhere at at much higher pay. and will the employer compensate that this person's wages due to not having to insure them. doubtful. And if I want to use their coverage with a doctor that is not in their network, will they cover it the same? Sounds like they are mandating what coverage I can get or pay a penalty. Now how is my logic so lacking or are you over simplifying the system.